Movies and Films
This is the forum for Movie and Film discussions. Again, our topic is naval warfare in WWII for the most part.
Re: Titanic Sank Faster?
Posted by:
PatW
()
Date: December 07, 2005 07:59PM
Parks Stephenson, who's an Encyclopedia-Titanic member, and also part of the expedition that found what the press has incorrectly understood to be a third hull section, posted this on the E-T board. Sounds like the History Channel special is going to be worth seeing.
"I just flew in from Boston, it's close to midnight, and I have a full day of work tomorrow. I signed a non-disclosure agreement that prevents me from disclosing details about the new find. Much of what the public can know before the History Channel show airs on 26 February was written in the AP report, which was subsequently picked up by news outlets around the globe (which surprised the heck out me!).
The new find is a big deal. As you might have guessed, the press simplified it to the point where even Dr. Ballard cannot understand the significance of the find. The Lone Wolf Productions crew did not find a "Third Piece." We all know that Titanic broke in two, with a lot of pieces fragmented between the two major halves. The new find is actually a collection of artefacts that constitute a third major debris field, if you consider the debris field strewn by the bow section the first field, and the field strewn by the stern section to be the second. I cannot describe what constitutes the rationale behind the third debris field...you will have to tune into the History Channel in February to get the whole story. Somehow, though, the third area of interest was boiled down in translation to a "third piece," which does the find a disservice, in my opinion.
In my view, this is new and exciting stuff. I wouldn't have flown cross-country to drive in the snow, otherwise.
The quote attributed to me is unfortunate. It was a comment plucked out of a larger round-table discussion. Taken out of context, it makes me sound like I am dismissing past research and analysis efforts. On the contrary, our group is looking to build and expand upon the works of others who have gone before us.
Any further questions must be relayed to Lynn Gardner at the History Channel Parks"
Pat W
"I just flew in from Boston, it's close to midnight, and I have a full day of work tomorrow. I signed a non-disclosure agreement that prevents me from disclosing details about the new find. Much of what the public can know before the History Channel show airs on 26 February was written in the AP report, which was subsequently picked up by news outlets around the globe (which surprised the heck out me!).
The new find is a big deal. As you might have guessed, the press simplified it to the point where even Dr. Ballard cannot understand the significance of the find. The Lone Wolf Productions crew did not find a "Third Piece." We all know that Titanic broke in two, with a lot of pieces fragmented between the two major halves. The new find is actually a collection of artefacts that constitute a third major debris field, if you consider the debris field strewn by the bow section the first field, and the field strewn by the stern section to be the second. I cannot describe what constitutes the rationale behind the third debris field...you will have to tune into the History Channel in February to get the whole story. Somehow, though, the third area of interest was boiled down in translation to a "third piece," which does the find a disservice, in my opinion.
In my view, this is new and exciting stuff. I wouldn't have flown cross-country to drive in the snow, otherwise.
The quote attributed to me is unfortunate. It was a comment plucked out of a larger round-table discussion. Taken out of context, it makes me sound like I am dismissing past research and analysis efforts. On the contrary, our group is looking to build and expand upon the works of others who have gone before us.
Any further questions must be relayed to Lynn Gardner at the History Channel Parks"
Pat W
| Subject | Written By | Posted |
|---|---|---|
Titanic Sank Faster?
|
Eric | 12/06/2005 02:20PM |
|
Re: Titanic Sank Faster?
|
PatW | 12/06/2005 08:17PM |
|
Re: Titanic Sank Faster?
|
PatW | 12/07/2005 07:59PM |